Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

nasdaq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 414 posts

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#111

Post by ei8htyfi5e »

simion314 wrote: post #92
network2592 wrote: post #32

> It apologised last month for the "trouble" it had caused, saying that its commitment to avoid supply chains from Xinjiang was an expression of compliance with U.S. law, rather than a statement of its position on the issue. So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? To what extent are Intel chips designed and manufactured in China? Presumably, they are…

>slave labour in concentration camps Not an english speaker, so is Is "slave" correctly used here or is more like a "metaphor"?, In my mind a slave is someone you own, you can sell or kill. Someone you keep in prison is called different and people kept in prison for political reasons have also different label, religions/race imprisonment might also have a different label.

[flagged]

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#113

Post by bravo22 »

vmception wrote: post #98
bravo22 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which again goes to my point. People who care about Intel taking a stand against China should actually buy shares from the existing investors and make them. If no one wants to do that then what is all these kvetch about "capitalism" and "greed" corrupting companies and our values when it is the people who do not care. Certainly not enough to pay up for the shares.

ha, a classic prisoner's dilemma. in my case I was waiting for disgruntled shareholders to sell because an aggregate stance was not taken by management or other shareholders, and then when sold it goes to people more or less apathetic. in your case you want people to buy the shares at any price but likely a premium, in order to exercise a goal, which I frankly think is absurd. so guess the market has priced everythin…

Interesting take. Here is my view:

If the American consumers of Intel chips -- the people and government actors -- are unhappy with Intel's stance then they can also not buy their chips. This is basically what the Chinese are doing (without owning shares). Now granted the Chinese people have little say in it but the government is ostencibly acting on their behalf. Even if China was a democractic country and the CCP could not ban Intel outright then the government or the people could say that they would not buy Intel chips.

So if Americans did the same to uphold their own belifes then Intel would suffer here and that would reduce the stock price, which would make it easier for people who want to take them to take the progressive position to buy the stock and force them to reverse their position.

The key take away is that there is no scenario in which both sides actuall care about the issue and Intel stock doesn't drop.

Since it doesn't it means that Americans do not care about it as much as the Chinese, or do not know how to express their displeasure :)

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#114

Post by mrweasel »

rastapasta42 wrote: post #89
999900000999 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Big difference is that Uyghurs are not rapists and murderers, and they didn't commit crimes. What's wrong with prison labor in US? Those criminals committed acts deemed bad for society. We could either pay for them to stay in a fancy hotel, or make them pay back debt to society. This is not comparable to imprisoning people based on ethnicity.

Aren’t people in prison to get rehabilitated? They don’t really repay anything to society by working for pennies for a prison run by a private company.

In fact you could argue that prisoners are stealing job from others by working for next to nothing.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#115

Post by bravo22 »

baybal2 wrote: post #105
bravo22 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that institutional investors like index funds hold share on behalf of indvidual persons.

That's even worse, as this means somebody takes your money, and pay somebody to stooge for China without you knowing.

Well you presumably know what is in your portfolio or can find out if social issues are that important.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#116

Post by fakeslimshady5 »

ei8htyfi5e wrote: post #104
jchook wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s economic warfare against a destabilized region that only recently quelled constant terrorism. The US casts a blanket assumption that ALL products from the region are produced by slave labor unless proven otherwise. That’s backwards. And meanwhile US government and corporations have no problem buying products produced by US prison slave labor, or overseas child labor.

It’s absolutely not backwards. When you have a million people in a concentration camp in a given region, and China is known for shipping these slaves around their country to work in factories, to make sanctions and targeted policies more difficult to apply, can you maybe see why a rule of thumb has been created black listing an entire region? This is their choice. Cause. Effect.

No post body was provided.

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#117

Post by jevoten »

photochemsyn wrote: post #82
jevoten wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't recall anyone but the investor class being happy to embrace offshoring. But it took the economist and investor class the longest to realize the drawbacks that others knew instinctively. And now you use "we" to describe their opinion and lobbying?

Does every retired boomer living quite well off their 401K retirement plan represent a member of 'the investor class'? How many would be willing to accept a cutback in dividend payouts if it meant corporations would instead invest that money in rebuilding manufacturing in the United States?

The investor class being those that have significant political influence. I sure don't recall any large boomer political movements demanding more offshoring. In fact, a politician promising the exact opposite was quite popular.

But because they reap some minor, incidental payoff from a policy they did not choose, you're going to claim that means they were in favor of it??

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#118

Post by network2592 »

em500 wrote: post #90
network2592 wrote: post #32

> It apologised last month for the "trouble" it had caused, saying that its commitment to avoid supply chains from Xinjiang was an expression of compliance with U.S. law, rather than a statement of its position on the issue. So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? To what extent are Intel chips designed and manufactured in China? Presumably, they are…

> So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? Maybe their position is that they have not established as a fact that there is slave labour in concentration camps in Xinjiang? Have you considered that as an alternative possibility? From the article: > The letter now reads that the company prohibits "any human trafficked or involuntary labour such as forced,…

Engaging in epistemic and semantic hair splitting does not alter the reality of slave concentration camps or make it any less worse.

Here is a recent article [0] on rape and forced sterilization of Uyghur women.

[0] https://nypost.com/2021/12/18/uyghur-women-recall-horrors-of...

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#119

Post by gspr »

AYBABTME wrote: post #109
gspr wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Expecting moral courage from a big corporation is probably an exercise in inevitable disappointment though. I agree about the fact that it is. But why do we accept that? Corporations are made up of people. We certainly do expect people – even groups of people – to exhibit moral courage. Of course, they do sometimes disappoint us, but the expectations remain reasonable in a good society.

My guess is it's easy to "spread" guilt around, so that everyone feels like it's out of their hands and they're not entirely responsible for the facts.

Doesn't work with crimes, for instance. Or with poor performance of the company – the shareholders sure won't throw up their hands and say "oh well, we can't figure out why we're not seeing any returns, so we'll just let it slide".

Re: Intel removes Xinjiang references from shareholder letter

#120

Post by daniel-cussen »

simion314 wrote: post #92
network2592 wrote: post #32

> It apologised last month for the "trouble" it had caused, saying that its commitment to avoid supply chains from Xinjiang was an expression of compliance with U.S. law, rather than a statement of its position on the issue. So is the position of Intel that slave labour in concentration camps is an acceptable means of production? To what extent are Intel chips designed and manufactured in China? Presumably, they are…

>slave labour in concentration camps Not an english speaker, so is Is "slave" correctly used here or is more like a "metaphor"?, In my mind a slave is someone you own, you can sell or kill. Someone you keep in prison is called different and people kept in prison for political reasons have also different label, religions/race imprisonment might also have a different label.

> In my mind a slave is someone you own, you can sell or kill.

It varies a lot place to place and era to era what exactly is a slave and what isn't. Servants? Serfs? Even in a single era and a single place, as soon as one of the laws changes, things are not the same. Like in China, after the Unification, Chin Han called his administers what Westerners call "servants" or "slaves". I think this is a Western thing. Really, a better translation would be they were his "perkins," a Chilean word that basically means "someone who does what someone else says." But it doesn't have a definition, don't think in terms of definitions, think in terms of the relationship between words. That's the thing, the West is big on titles, I suppose the East is to a degree, but it's really meaningless. I wonder what they call Emperor Augustus in Chinese, what else it means. Ultimately, it's not what your title is, it's what you can do. Same with slaves, the word is just a word, the question is what will you have to do.

Post reply on HN